Monday, March 26, 2007
|
|
The Increased Participation Of A Minority In Political Activism Does Not Excuse Bigotry Directed At Them
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
2:23 PM
|
|
It would take a very foolish observer not to expect the presence of Senator Barack Obama in the race not to result in higher participation of African-Americans in Campaign 2008 and significant support for his campaign from African Americans. When that support materializes, it will not excuse or in any way legitimize racist attacks on the senator or his supporters. This is so obvious as to not even bear mentioning.
Except for the argument made by Red State's Erick Erickson in his Human Events review of my new book. The full review is here, but here is the graph I find troubling:
In another contradiction, Hewitt writes, in the chapter titled “Mitt Romney’s Advantages”: “Start with the Mormons. The basic unit of the LDS church is the ward, comparable to a Catholic parish. Wards are collected into ‘stakes,’ again, comparable to a Catholic diocese. There are eight stakes in Iowa, which include 85 wards. . . . And in those 85 wards will be an incredible not-so-secret weapon--a core of young people . . . not to mention experienced missionaries.” So “the Romney campaign will certainly attract hundreds of thousands of Mormons. . . . This is a standard feature of American politics, and much to be celebrated.” But this begs the question: If we can expect heavy participation by Mormon missionaries as grassroots activists for an American presidential campaign, why can we not ask questions about Romney’s Mormon beliefs and why can Americans not be concerned? After all, contrary to the popular perception of the left and media, there were no organized platoons of Presbyterian missionaries knocking on doors for Reagan, brigades of Baptists for Bill Clinton, nor marauding packs of Methodists for George W. Bush. This is something relatively unseen and new to most Americans --including many deeply evangelical Americans who believe Mormonism to be a cult, or at best a religion that has some shared roots, but is fundamentally grounded in heresies.
I find the effort to mainstream religious tests and even religious bigotry to be abhorrent and far outside the political mainstream. As I argue at length in the book, the effort by those on the left to introduce this sort of rhetoric should have led to their shaming, and I am sorry to say the same about Erick's drive-by. Mormons are American citizens with every right to be enthusiastic about the candidacy of a co-religionist, and that enthusiasm is not a license to begin a theological inquisition at a public figure whose campaign is about the direction of America and his qualifications to lead it.
There is something about this issue that destabilizes otherwise grounded commentators, leading them off rhetorical cliffs and into lapses of logic. Erick ignores how Catholic Americans were very enthusiastic over Kennedy's candidacy, and how that was not the occasion for denunciations of Popery or assaults on the miracle of Fatima or Lourdes. I imagine quite a few italian Americans will be enthusiastic over Rudy's run, and I don't expect Erick to be defending the ethnic smears directed at Italians by the uncouth and the bigoted. Joe Lieberman's heritage was not a starting gun for the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism no matter how many Jews might have felt great pride in his candidacy and expressed support for his campaign.
The attempt to use Romney's candidacy as a step-stool for attacks on the LDS is shocking when it occurs on the left, and worse when it occurs on the right.
|
|
|
There was much written in blogs about Mark Ellison, his faith and his associations with CAIR, Louis Faracon, and other questionable entities with ties to Jihad and Islamism. All of these sprung up from a question of his faith, how he has practiced it and where it has led him. How different is that from bigots questioning Romney, Okay, okay I know Mitt is a Red Blooded American and Jihadists are bloodying Americans, but beyond that... |
|
As a practicing Mormon, a former Mormon missionary, a professor at the principal Mormon university, a lay local leader in the Mormon Church, and a longtime observer of all things Mormon, I can assure Mr. Erickson that Mormon missionaries will not be hitting the campaign trail for Mitt Romney.
The Church is scrupulously neutral with regard to electoral politics, and it would be flagrantly against the rules for any of our missionaries to be electioneering during his or her period of formal missionary service. Moreover, I can assure Mr. Erickson that we take those rules very seriously, and that we enforce them. Missionaries are to have one purpose and one purpose only during their missions, and that purpose is representing the Church. They are not permitted to hold jobs. They are not permitted to represent other causes or organizations. They are not permitted, even, to date. They certainly would never be permitted to serve as campaign workers. Not for Mitt Romney. Not for anybody. |
|
You have picked the wrong thing to get indignent about.
Just to use your example, if a minority person is running, it IS fair to ask him/her about how that experience shapped their lives and views. Obama will be asked (and he will tell, and tell, and tell) about how his racial background and the experiences relating to that have shapped his character. Same with Hilary and being a woman. Kerry's Catholic background was asked about, and Bush of course had no problem talking about his religion.
You can't pretend that a personal dynamic that is somewhat of an oddity to most people isn't going to be asked about. And you shouldn't claim that asking about it is "bigotry". It isnn't. The public has a legitimate facination with it.
(On the other hand, I am not arguing that no cites of a candidates unique aspect are out of bounds.) |
|
...to an extent. We'll test the limits of your convictions on this when a not-so-moderate Muslim runs for elected office. In fact, to a small extent, we have an example in the (successful) candidacy of Keith Ellison (D; MN 5th). The guys at Powerline tried--with limited success--to bring to light Ellison's associations, both past and very much present, with certain radical groups.
According to your thesis, did the guys at Powerline cross the line? Were they agents of bigotry? |
|
Hugh,
You are becoming tiresome over Romney and the LDS issue. Personal beliefs are relevant. Powerful organizations are relevant. Hearing your defense of ignoring those is becoming irrelevant.
How about letting it go for a while and addressing other issues? |
|
Steve-
Are you talking about my Congressman Keith Ellison? |
|
"There is something about this issue that destabilizes otherwise grounded commentators, leading them off rhetorical cliffs and into lapses of logic".
Yes. That something is called "bigotry". That RedState guy is a bigot.
|
|
Hugh, you don't have the ability to browbeat the American electorate into supporting Romney.
Romney may be real, {I very much doubt it...} he may have made a fine President.
But we'll never know. For he's going nowhere fast.
If the only millstone around his neck were his Mormonism, then he might have been able to escape the gravitational pull of America's present political reality, and lift off might have resulted in achieving orbit.
But when that Mormonism is combined with his political trajectory, that is his track record of his political ambitions strangely coinciding with his political and moral convictions, ................... then it's all over.
It's all over.
I feel kind of sorry for the bored billionaire.
But only kind of. He didn't need to chose Massachusetts. He could have chosen another state to run in, where his political views wouldn't have had to oscillate so wildly.
He chose Massachusetts. And as soon as he did that, it spelled the doom for whatever Presidential aspirations he may have had.
Especially, ESPECIALLY when he's trying to win the nomination after 12 years of the GOP putting up with the Bush men, pere and fils.
We want a Reagan Conservative.
We want a Conservative who will take names, kick a@%. We want a Conservative who will grab that bloated federal bureaucracy by the throat.
We don't want any man who is looking over his shoulder at the polls to tell him what to believe.
You seem fond of late mentioning Fatima and Lourdes.
Lourdes and Fatima don't impact doctrine. They don't effect the deposit of faith.
If some Catholics in a private capacity find the events of Fatima and Lourdes credible, and find spiritual inspiration in the events thereof, it doesn't effect the overall creed of the individual Catholic.
You can be a good Catholic and be skeptical of Lourdes, Fatima and LaSalle.
You can also be a good Catholic and place confidence in those revelations.
What's the big deal?
As a matter of law, religious tests are prohibited. But that doesn't impact culture. If you told the founders that religious convictions should be off limits for public discussion, they would have looked at you like you were insane. For they knew that a person's religious beliefs threw light on the type of PUBLIC OFFICIAL he would prove to be.
Which of us would be so bold to say that Mohammad Atta's religion shouldn't be taken account of if he were running for high office?
If the leader of CAIR announced tomorrow that he's running for the Presidency, which of us would say that his religion is "off limits" in assessing his fitness for high office.
Every creed, every idea, every philosophical belief of the candidate is open to review. And it should be.
Mormonism should be subjected to the same intellectual scrutiny that Christianity has met since its inception.
Christians don't dodge intellectual engagement, they glory in it. They always have.
Anselm, Augustine, Bousset, John Courtney Murray, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Bonhoeffer, et al.
Christianity, and the Christian culture that has been built on it, isn't a thing of sequestration. It's in the public square. It built that public square.
Catholics aren't squeamish about Fatima, nor are they squeamish about the doctrine of transubstantiation. If anything, they regard with mild amusement those that profess skepticism about such things. Those with questions, we'll refer them to Athanasius, Augustine, Bonaventure, Aquinas, St. Albert the Great. It's no big thing for us.
It's rather boring actually.
But Romney has a problem. And that's a time frame. He needs to explain himself and his religius beliefs between now and that first massive primary date. And he isn't going to be able to get it done. He just doesn't have the time. And that's assuming that he would be able to successfully explain himself and his religious tenets. So even if he could do it, {and I don't know if he could do it, because I know absolutely NOTHING about Mormonism, other than it's headquartered in Salt Lake City}, even if he could do it, does he have the time, does he have the bully pulpit.
I don't think he does.
Which is why I deem his candidacy a sad distraction. If he truly believes in the GOP Platform. If he truly sees the staggering importance of winning this campaign in Iraq, and the importance of carrying the war to our enemies in Tehran and Damascus, and elsewhere, then he'll step aside. He'll offer his services and skills, WHICH ARE NOT INCOSIDERABLE, to the GOP, and place himself at the ready.
He needs a platform that allows Americans to see him, get comfortable wiht him, and be impressed by him. Such as Homeland Security for instance. Who would you rather have, Romney or Chertoff. If Romney were in charge during Katrina, does any one of us think it would have been such a brutal and complete disaster.
Of course not.
If he's running just to get people comfortable with the idea of his running, then that's smart.
But if he actually thinks that '08 is his best opportunity, then him and his staff are utterly clueless. He's a relatively young, healthy man. He has time. Time to prove himself, time to demonstrate that his newfound Conservative convictions are real, time to prove that "his transition" as you style it, is genuine.
He has time. A
|
|
|
If missionaries spoke about politics the church would loose it's not for profit (for prophit) status. Erik is an idiot. |
|
I am a Mormon's Mormon too. I have been a missionary as well (in New Jersey). While a missionary, I never participated in nor witnessed any other missionaries participating in campaigns of any kind or for any candidate, period, and I am one that LOVES my conservative politics. Any discussion that touched on politics was discretely sidelined, since it is a distraction to our mission.
Independently, now that I am not a missionary, I participate in politics freely as a conservative. As members of the church we are urged to participate in the political system, but there is no endorsement of political candidates by the church itself. Except on a few moral issues, the church generally avoids interjecting itself into politics. I like Romney, and will likely support him for President, and do not represent anybody but myself and my family.
You see, the church is not projecting itself into this arena. This shouldn't be an issue. Look, you can vote for who you want for whatever reason in the world you want. However, if are going to vote against him because he is Mormon, don't be surprised if one day your group is deemed unfit to hold office for your beliefs.
I don't fear attacks on me because of my faith. I have had to deal with that to some degree or another throughout my life. I'll be fine. It's the nature of the beast. Don't do good conservatives in for a suicidal litmus test.
|
|
Not a single full-time missionary will participate in Mitt Romney's campaign. Not one. Nor will any local congregation or other collection of Latter-day Saints receive the slightest encouragement through official LDS channels to involve themselves with Romney's or anyone else's campaign.
Erickson is letting his diseased imagination run away with him. This is pure fantasy.
|
|
And I'm truly troubled that Professor Hewitt, in his eagerness to boost the Romney candidacy, may be providing future political cover for the adherents of jihadism.
To make sure that the Jihadists are subjected to a political and cultural strict scrutiny, we have to make sure that all candidates religious beliefs are vetted.
We don't want a Jimmy Swaggart. We don't want an Ian Paisley. We don't want a Father Coughlin.
And we don't want a Mohammad Atta either.
I'm NOT implying that Romney is in any way related to such men and their views. But what I am saying is that religious beliefs, while NOT a LEGAL test, are surely open to a political and cultural review.
What is occurring in Europe today, and what's more, the horrors that will descend in the decades to come, should give us all pause, before we blithely and cavalierly dismiss questions about religious beliefs.
Support Romney, vote for Romney, contribute to Romney, but don't suggest that ALL religious beliefs are off-limits for public discussion. We can't mentally disarm ourselves in such a manner in the midst of an ongoing demographic jihad.
For our own national security, religious beliefs are VERY MUCH at issue. And what's more, as the decades unfold, they will only become more so.
As G.K. Chesterton said, "before you tear down a fence, KNOW WHY it was put up in the first place." |
|
Erik Erickson, the managing director of Red State, wants you to believe that Mitt Romney is going to purchase the Mormon Church, lay off all the missionaries, and re-assign them to work for the Mitt Romney 2008 campaign.
Erik wants you to believe that Romney will replace all of the name tags that now say, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” with Romney 08 nametags.
First of all, the Mormon church is for a “living prophet” however it is not a “for profit” organization. As a non-profit organization, it, and any of its representatives, can not advocate in behalf of any politician.
Mitt Romney is wealthy, but he can not purchase the church, lay off all the missionaries, and re-hire them to work for his 2008 candidacy.
|
|
I expect to see the trolls in this thread (hi, Dan!) but its a bit disappointing to see someone like Erick Erickson make extreme statements based on extreme ignorance. Mormon missionaries won't be working for Romney and anyone who knows anything about Mormonism would realize this.
Anyway, as a group people whose religion is Mormon are *always* heavily involved in grass roots work for the GOP, so if Erickson is right Mormonism should be an issue in every election. Great. |
|
So Erickson rattles on about Methodist brigades and what not. I think he's missing two points.
First, I'm betting that Bush got more evangelical participation in his campaign than, say, Bob Dole. Why Erickson thinks this would justify a full bore inquisition into evangelical theology is beyond me.
Second, Hewitt is exactly right to make the comparison to African-Americans. To the extent Mormons are enthusiastic about Romney its not for theological reasons. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of what those theological reasons would be. Its because Mormonism in the US functions a lot like an ethnicity. |
|
Hugh - you seem to be in major over-reaction mode to the questions posed by Mr. Erickson at Red State concerning the secular implications of Mitt Romney's Mormon religious affiliation. The man posed some rather reasonable questions that are no doubt on the minds of the relatively small proportion of Republicans (in most recent polls, still down in the mid-single digits, despite your months of incessant flogging of Romney's candidacy) who are even considering a Romney vote next year. These questions are not based upon a religious test in the meaning ascribed under the Constitution - such as, asking if Romney's personal theology itself is disqualifying - and certainly these questions do not rise to the level of the open, ugly bigotry that you now charge. The man did not say or suggest that a Mormon must not become President of the United States because of his faith.
You are forgetting (if you ever knew) that the Mormon church is not like other churches in America in its historic secular behavior ... it indeed has a "history" that is rather checkered and filled with violence, discrimination, and suppression - and not all of that secular negativity was directed at the Mormons by the so-called "Gentiles". The Mormons literally carved out their own kingdom in the deserts of Utah, Idaho, and other adjoining parts of the west as a rejection of American civil government .. they formed their own army, they openly rebelled at times against US Army forces, and they conducted at least one massacre of non-Mormon immigrants (go do a Google search on "Mountain Meadows Massacre"), and only abandoned their longtime devotion to plural marriage as a condition for entry into the Union as a State in the late nineteenth century. It was only within our lifetime that the Mormons abandoned their open religious discrimination against black Americans. No other religion ever established an independent state within the United States at any time following the adoption of the US Constitution.
Even long after their civil assimilation in the United States, the Mormon church has retained a reputation - whether deserved or not, I will not argue in this space - for mixing secular and religious practice in the States of Utah and Idaho, where they account for majorities of the population. I lived for more than 8 years in Idaho, including half that time in the Mormon-dominated south, and half that time in the decidedly non-Mormon north end of the State. One's position as a candidate or a voter in the Mormon church, or not within the Mormon church, certainly has dominated many a political campaign undercurrent and kitchen table political discussion in Idaho, if not Utah. As a non-Mormon myself, I certainly felt discriminated against on many occasions by the Saints within what would be considered strictly secular settings. I am not anti-Mormon per se, but I certainly feel like many others who have lived in Mormon-dominated areas of this country that Mormons definitely appear to like to exercise secular power when they, as the political majority, are able to flex such muscle.
That perception does not make me a bigot. It represents an area of doubt, based upon my own knowledge of history and my own personal experiences, that would need to be addressed were I seriously considering a Mormon for our party Presidential nominee (which for other reasons of qualification, strictly political and experiential, I am not).
Now, I happen to believe that the United States as a nation would be far from any severe risk of Mormon secular domination simply because a Mormon resides in the White House ... any more than Kennedy's term caused a succession to power by the Pope.
But it is also not "bigotry" to muse openly about a potential Mormon candidate's views on the proper secular role of a religious institution to which he belongs as a lifelong member. Just as it would be acceptable to ask any candidate about the implications of his or her memberships in the NRA, the Daughters of the American Revolution, Planned Parenthood, the National Right to Life Group, or any other group that involves itself in the secular affairs of the nation - either currently, or historically.
Indeed, such questions would have been appropriate to ask a Quaker candidate for President (Richard Nixon was one), given the Quaker's longstanding theological opposition to war of any kind for any purpose. The fact that Nixon's religion rarely if ever came up as an issue was that he made it quite clear, in his political performance first in Congress and then as Vice President, that he did not reject war as a policy. (by the way, some of my ancestors were Quaker pacifists who were arrested and imprisoned for their refusal to fight the Brits on behalf of the Colonies in the Revolutionary War).
Perhaps if Romney made it equally clear by stating directly that his actions as President will be governed strictly by his oath to the Constitution, even if any such policy or action conflicts with his religious faith, then the whole matter would simply go away.
(Jeb Bush did much the same during his two terms as Governor of Florida. He felt it necessary early on to state his intention to obey the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida when it came to issues in direct conflict with his heartfelt Roman Catholic faith, such as the imposition and carrying out of the death sentence, which his church openly opposes).
By shouting "bigot" at even the suggestion of a question concerning the secular activities of a religious group to which a candidate is a member, Hugh, you are attempting to stifle free and legitimate political discourse about matters of public concern. That is little different from Hillary Clinton shouting "politics of personal destruction!" every time her sordid history in Arkansas and the White House are mentioned. Such flagrant castigation and attempted quashing of reasonable questioning and discussion is not particularly American.
Now, let me ask you Hugh, if a member of the Wahahabi Sunni Sect of Islam were to run for President (maybe some Imam from Detroit or the Twin Cities), would you be so quick to shout "bigot!" should anybody ask him or her their opinion and policy regarding his religion's Jihadist behavior, if not theology?
I didn't think so!
NOTE TO ALL MOONBATS - I am not saying Mormons and Wahabis are equivalent threats to the peace and freedoms of America ... it's just that now Hugh wants to start drawing artificial lines separating permissible vs. impermissible political discussions touching on religious belief as it affects secular policy ... where do we end?
In America, it is Constitutionally protected that everything is permissible in judging our prospective Commanders-in-Chief on matters of State. |
|
So let me get this right, a guy who voted for Reagan over Mondale, for GHWB over Dukakis, for GHWB over Clinton, for Dole over Clinton, for GW twice, over Gore, {or shall I say "the Goracle"} and Mr. Magic Hat Kerry, a guy who voted for Santorum, who held his nose and voted for Specter, but isn't persuaded that a Romney candidacy is a good idea, is a .......................... troll........?????????????????????????????
The ONLY Democrat I EVER voted for was Robert Casey, Sr, for Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And he was running against a fraud, Barbara Haffer, who later revealed herself as much when she pulled a Jim Jeffords, and jumped parties to the Democrats. SO EVEN THEN, I was confronted wiht a choice of two Democrats, and I picked the purportedly pro-life one, Casey.
And I'm a ....................... fricken troll ................. just because I'm vocal in opposition to a Romney candidacy.
Take a look where your political desperation has landed you, you're branding fellow Conservatives "trolls."
I'm going to support the GOP candidate. If that person is McCain, despite my disgust for campaign finance reform, I'll vote for him. If that person is Rudy, despite his marital difficulties, he'll have my vote. If that man is Fred Thompson, despite his co-starring with Alec Baldwin, he'll have my vote.
But I'm the troll.
Step back, gain some perspective, take a good, hard look at the political landscape.
Take a deep breath people. |
|
"If we can expect heavy participation by Mormon missionaries as grassroots activists for an American presidential campaign, why can we not ask questions about Romney’s Mormon beliefs and why can Americans not be concerned? "
has nothing to do with Mitt's testimony.
that statement specifically implies that because he recieves support from LDS members that his beleifs(character) should be brought to question.
just as it can be implied that because Obama will have many supporters of African desent we should questions Barracks beleifs(character) attributed to him because he is black.
does anyone understand what that implies?
that black people will have questionable characteristics because they are black.
or/and
that LDS members will have questionable characteristics because they are mormon.
the choice of religion vs no choice to be black does not change the conclusions that people are coming to because Mitt is a morman and they are doing so because of bigotry. |
|
This is exactly the sort of cross-purposes argument that I most detest.
I'm sure that Hugh didn't mean that Mormon Missionaries were going to begin endorsing Romney as part of their mission. I believe he meant to show that a core of enthusiastic young "Mormons for Mitt" have the organizational skill and experience to put on a true and truly effective grass roots campaign if they are so inclined. I would agree with that.
I strongly believe that every candidate's religious beliefs and practices should be questioned and answered directly. I would hope that an individual's religious beliefs directly inform his/her character and so those beliefs and their relation to job performance should be known to all voters; there just can't be any doubt about that.
If a candidate doesn't want to talk about how his religion informs his life and work, that's my cue to vote for someone else. |
|
First to Dan and the others who ran with this and turned it into a debate on the viability of discussing Romney's religion vs not.
You are trolls on this thread not because you raise vocal objections to Romney's candidacy, but because you have failed to address the issue at hand in Mr. Hewitt's post and instead turned the comments into a forum for your broader personal agenda.
As you suggest, "step back, gain some perspective, and take a breath." The post was narrowly focused on Erickson's either blatantly ignorant or blatantly untruthful hit on Romney and LDS with specific regard to sending LDS missionaries to knock doors on the campaign trail.
It is undisputed fact that the LDS church sponsors an assertive and worldwide proselyting missionary effort.
It is also undisputed fact that those missionaries are strictly charged with doing nothing else but promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the LDS Church.
The LDS church strictly limits the activities of its missionaries to a very narrow set of activities and code of conduct. To expressly state, as Mr. Erickson has done, or even imply that missionaries would be used to go door to door on behalf of Mitt Romney is so ludicrous on its face as to defy all logic and reasonable judgment.
I can forgive Mr. Erickson for not knowing the intricate details of the LDS missionary program, or of failing to understand just how the LDS church functions and what it believes. I cannot, and neither should any reasonable minded conservative or American for that matter, excuse him for spouting off grossly inaccurate and reckless representations about the conduct of the church or its members.
If he doesn't know what he is talking about, he should temper his criticism of the candidate he self-identifies as favoring. If he does know what he is talking about (i.e understands the LDS missionary program and how it functions) then he truly did launch a hit full of bigotry.
Either way, he owes an apology and a correction statement for this nugget of irresponsible editorialization.
|
|
The main reason the history Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not like those of other religions is because those other religions were not murdered, pillaged, driven from place to place, slandered, and libeled like Mormons were. To my knowledge, no other religion in the United States, including Judaism, has ever been the object of an official government-sponsored order of genocide (Missouri governor's extermination order of 1838).
Mormons have never been in open rebellion against the United States, contrary to statements by anti-Mormons. The United States failed miserably when it should have protected the Mormons' constitutional rights. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was perpetrated by Mormons who were acting on their own. The Church had no part of it, even though anti-Mormons still spread the lie that it did.
It never ceases to amaze me how many apparently normal people are afflicted with an irrational paranoia when it comes to Mormons. If you look at the number of Latter-day Saints in government, business, sports, science, and every other part of our society, I defy anyone to find evidence of attempts by the Church to exert inappropriate influence. It doesn't happen.
In my view the Constitution is not only the supreme law of the land, but it is also a document that sets forth the philosophy upon which our freedoms are based. Every one of us would do well to think carefully about the Article VI religious test clause and then decide if it's really right to question Romney about his religious beliefs while giving everybody else a pass. The vast majority of sniping comments both from the left and the right concerning the perceived "horrors" of Mormonism have absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency. Romney has stated very clearly that the Church will not attempt to influence his decisions or policies, nor will he seek their views. Church leaders didn't do it while he was governor of Massachusetts and they won't do it if he becomes president.
|
|
"and they conducted at least one massacre of non-Mormon immigrants (go do a Google search on "Mountain Meadows Massacre")"
Who is "they"? If by "they", you are referring to some wretched souls who, sadly, were members of the Church, you would be correct. (They will receive their reward!) On the other hand, if you are saying that the act was directed by the prophet of the church, you would be lying. There is nothing to support that. You see, you don't become a bigot when you discuss the church or analyze the implications of this or that, but you are one when you smear the church with unsupportable claims. |
|
|
Perhaps the faith of any candidate should be taboo. Unfortunately that is not reality. So the question I have for the Professor is why the concern about Romney discussing his faith and there being a full airing on Mormonism if that is what the nation is interested in? Unless there is something to hide or be ashamed of, I just do not understand the fervor to oppose any discussion of the Mormon Church. |
|
It's NOT Romney's religion I'm worried about.
Steve Young, Orrin Hatch, Andy Reid, Vai Sikahema, {former Eagle player, now sports broadcaster} et al have proven that Mormonism isn't a problem.
I don't have any qualms about that.
My point here is much more narrow. The West, as Mark Steyn explained in his book, is getting hit with an UNPRECEDENTED demographic tsunami, a demographic, to be more accurate, to be more precise, a demographic jihad.
We can't adhere to polite legal and cultural fictions. By 2040, There will be 70 million muslims in Europe, that's the equivalent to the entirety of Turkey. And that number won't remain static. Bernard Lewis said recently that by mid century, Europe's tale will have been told. We are on the verge of AGE altering events, of generational and civilizational consequence. And for Professor Hewitt to breezily dismiss religious questions at such a time, with so much at stake, with such an Olympian disdain, is simply beyond me. The Dark Age gave way to the Renaissance, which gave way to the Reformation which yielded later to the Enlightenment. These are all periods of Western history that we're acquainted with.
We are on the verge of such a time now. We are on the verge of a time where America, our beloved country, the last, best hope, will be very much ALONE, in a world profoundly unfriendly to Western norms.
We have the right, NAY, we have the OBLIGATION, the obligation to ALL that we've been and meant, to weigh to a nicety islam.
Professor Hewitt, in his zealousness to boost Governor Romney, may be intellectually disarming the foremost champion of the West, the leader of the free world.
THAT'S what I've got a problem with, a major problem.
Read Bat Yeor, read Andrew Bostom, read the koran, read it aware of their doctrine of supercedence, whereby subsequent warlike verses erase earlier and peaceable ones. Recently, George Cardinal Pell, {Sydney, Australia} sat down and read through the Koran and the Haddiths. And he made a note each time he found that violence against the infidel was enjoined. After a while, he gave it up, there were that many that continued citations became superfluous. The entire thing was one prolonged paean to violence.
That's what we're talking about here people.
And there's no way that placing such scriptures off limits is sane.
When affectations become unsafe, become unhealthy, continuations of those affectations becomes a sign of mental pathology.
Islam IS an issue. And will become only more of an issue as the years unfold.
On that narrow point, I'll rest. |
|
The LDS Church is well organized and I think it gives Mitt Romney a grass root network, in many ways, similar to the Catholic grass root network John Kennedy used to his advantage in the 1960s. That is a good thing. There were similar prejudices to Roman Catholics in the 1960s as Mormons face today--and I suspect Romney can overcome those prejudices (to the extent they exist). The difference, of course, is the Catholic Church was much larger than the LDS Church.
Romney is not gaining traction--but it cannot be anti Mormon bias alone that is causing that. Romney is a decent candidate, but he is not inspiring anywhere near the buzz and support Giuliani or Thompson are getting, or even the support McCain is getting. |
|
If we're going to discuss the intricacies of LDS history, doctrine, thought, and practice, then let's also discuss the same from Presbyterianism, Methodism, Judaism, Islam, Evangelicalism, Catholicism, and all the other isms, just to be fair. It is a religious test to require Romney to have to go through this while everyone else gets a pass.
Of course, after all those interminable discussions about theological differences, there won't be any time to talk about policy, legislation, immigration, health care, social security, taxation, the judiciary, foreign affairs, etc. Is religion really what this campaign should be about?
|
|
|
|
Re. questioning a Muslim's background:
If Mormons were running around killing innocent people, waging war and otherwise acting like a complete disgrace to the human species, and citing their faith as justification for their deplorable and inexcusible actions, then you might have a point in drawing parallels.
Since Islam is the only religion being used on a worldwide scale as justification for the absolute worst human behavior, those parellels simply don't exist.
Islam has brought profiling and condemnation upon itself. The Mormons have not. Not all religions, cultures or people are equally good, and we should treat people based on how they behave, not on some ideal of cultural equality. |
|
I have some observations. If a man claims to be an adherent to a religion I sit up and take notice and listen as he articulates his beliefs. If he is a devotie of Islam I know he is allowed to lie to me an "infidel" as part of his religious duty.
As an evangelical I have major doctrinal disagreements with the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, The leftist wing of the Episcipal Church, etc. I would not want such to preach in my church but their religion would not be a hinderance to my voting for them for public office.
If Mitt Romney is on the ballot in my state's meaningless primary (March 08) I will vote for him or someone else based on their adhearance to conservatism and their views on the Iraq war on terror, abortion, and taxes.
I can completely disagree with someone doctrinally and still vote for them based on their political positions if I think they are the best candidate. Even as a non Mormon I know that the LDS church would never use its missionaries to further even a fellow Mormon's political campaign.
Their religious beliefs, yes I want to know them. If they are running for office I want to know their political positons most of all. |
|
Erik has fallen into the trap of assuming the LDS Church will 'sponsor' Romney just as many assumed that they would sponsor the Olympic Games in 2002. Hugh's point is that there are a battalion of *returned* Mormon missionaries who could easily become active supporters for Romney.
And, Romney is counting on that, or so it seems to me. His campaign is organizing 'Students for Mitt', where a college student can raise funds for the campaign as a summer job and keep 10% of what they raise. As far as I've read, no one has tried this before.
If, in fact, there are young Republicans out there who are supporting Romney, a good number of them may be *returned* missionaries, with the skills they need to be Romney salesmen (and saleswomen). |
|
This seems to be an inherrent contradiction to me - if you don't want Mormonism to be brought up everytime WRT Romney, then why write a book showcasing exactly that?(the title of the book is not helping any) - its bound to attract the kinds of debate there is.
But Erik does bring up some good points - Hugh does exactly what he often accuses the MSM of doing - leave out some facts that might mess up a nice argument. MSM does that sometimes to maintain readership and sell. Hugh is no different. You dont write a book to pass time - you do it to sell. |
|
Apparently you don't know your American history too well ... American secular history is riddled with religious persecution which had much to do with the very founding of our nation ... and the US Constitution itself was written, to a large degree, in reactionary form to forestall a repeat of the very real and often ugly historical suppression of religious non-conformers of all manner. Of course, almost everybody knows that the Puritans came to America, founding the Massachusetts colony largely to escape religious persecution in England, as also did the Catholics who founded the Maryland colony. A civil war over religion was fought in England in the mid-seventeenth century that had real political implications here in the Colonies. As I said in my prior post, my own ancestors were pacifist Quakers who, in the very act of forming this nation, were arrested, imprisoned, and deprived of their property in the Virginia colony for living their religious beliefs and refusing to engage in warfare. Fortunately, after the Constitution became the law of the land in 1787, open religious discrimination in matters of state (but not personal matters of choice) was outlawed for the first time in Western history.
I do not offer reasons why Mormons should not be considered as candidates for President of the United States. I offered reasons why some people have legitimate questions to be answered about Romney, regarding the secular manifestations of his Mormon faith, within the context of factual historical actions of other Mormons, in the process of making up one's mind on this particular candidate.
To wave the bloody shirt of "bigot!" as Hugh Hewitt has done, as a means of forestalling discussion of valid political consideration, Hugh does not advance the common good of rational decision-making. Hurtful epithets only serve to harden positions and, frankly, tees people off.
As I pointed out in my prior post, other candidates have in recent times found it necessary to openly declare that, in the event of a conflict between their personal faith and their secular oath, that they would nonetheless adhere to their secular oath. If Mitt Romney has indeed done so, then it's not well known, and should be discussed and not spurned as a "forbidden" subject. Indeed, the more that Mitt's supporters protest the very idea that his religion might be a negative with voters, the more they make it so. And polls consistently show that it is an issue with many Republican voters. Perhaps even more so with Democrat and independent voters who already openly mistrust religious conservatives like George W. Bush.
Deal with it.
Rather than shrieking "bigot!", Hugh would have been far better off educating Red State and its readers (and Hugh's readers), providing appropriate citations of Romney speeches or published writings wherein he has sworn fealty to his hoped-for Constitutional oath as you say that he did, and, to illustrate Mitt's secularity in good-natured manner, foreswearing any advantage of the well-known organizational powers of the Mormon Church on behalf of his secular political campaign.
Finally, regarding several reactions posted here to my mention of the Mountain Meadows Massacre - which is established historical fact, not fiction - it was made not to claim that the official church sanctioned that bloody act - it was to demonstrate that Mormons have a well known history, controversial though it may be, that informs much "Gentile" mistrust of historical Mormon actions and motives. We could spend endless hours debating Mountain Meadows, and everybody here would be bored to tears and likely no Mormon would ever agree to any culpability by Brigham Young or any of his church leaders - even though the lead perpetrators were known to be part of Young's inner circle at one time or another, until he denounced them after their conviction. We cannot settle these matters on this page. What people have to know is that people who have been heavily exposed to at least the perception of Mormon domination have developed strong feelings and beliefs in reaction. And these feelings and beliefs must be addressed head on.
Hey, I'm no Quaker, or Mormon, or Catholic, or Pentecostal Christian either. It's immaterial what my personal religious beliefs are, the same as it is immaterial what Mitt Romney's personal beliefs are. But institutional mistrust of the Mormon Church, all denials aside, is reality in certain segments of America today. Refusal to admit that it's even a subject fit for polite company is guaranteed to perpetuate the mistrust. Others have handled similar questions about their religious affiliations in a forthright manner without going off and flinging the "B" word indiscriminately in a vain attempt to foreclose the debate. |
|
Replying to chad the elder
Steve- Are you talking about my Congressman Keith Ellison?
Yes, chad the elder, I suppose I am. Sorry for the error, "senior moment" as Rush would say.
It should have been written thus...
Mitt Romney & the shadow of Keith Ellison
There was much written in blogs about Keith Ellison, his faith and his associations with CAIR, Louis Faracon, and other questionable entities with ties to Jihad and Islamism. All of these sprung up from a question of his faith, how he has practiced it and where it has led him. How different is that from bigots questioning Romney, Okay, okay I know Mitt is a Red Blooded American and Jihadists are bloodying Americans, but beyond that...
|
|
Hugh, Erik tries to quote you in context and then asks a question which appears to be fair and you go ballistic! Why?
I don’t know if you mention in your book that fifteen percent of the military is Mormon --at least when I was on active duty-- while Mormons only account for about two percent of the general population.
Your list of Romney Advantages seems to imply (based on the quote from your book) that Romney will be able to tap a resource—the LDS Church—in a way that will bring new people into the political process. Your quote implies that the LDS influx into the political process could also influence the race in a way that is beyond their numbers. Erik only asks if that is true, what effect if any will that have on the political process?
Before you try to tag me with the bigot label please know this: I have worked for a California State Senator (now a Congressman) that is Mormon. In addition, I have defended Mormon candidates against attacks by evangelical Christians. In one local Assembly race an evangelical entered the race against a conservative Mormon solely on the basis that he went to the wrong church. The evangelical’s campaign manager—an ordained minister and one-time leader in the California Republican Party--told me that if I continued to support the Mormon, I would be sinning because it was God’s will that I support the evangelical. (The evangelical could not name one issue that she would vote differently on than her Mormon opponent.)
Hugh, many people are curious about Mormons and wrongly view them as a monolithic group. The fact that Romney has been on both sides of many social issues while being a member in good standing with the LDS organization has not clarified his beliefs.
Romney is a representative of the LDS church. That may be unfair but many voters have not known too many Mormons in high public office. I think many folks are curious to know how his faith will affect Romney’s politics. Hopefully, your book sheds some light on the subject.
|
|
There are some very strange comments on this thread. I was brought up in a secular home. I was actually atheist most of my youth. I progressed to agnostic and then some form of Christian (hodge-podge of what I chose to believe in - or is that Catholicism?). I grew up essentially taking care of numero-uno and living for the moment. As far as sins go - been there done all of them (a bit exaggerated but not too far off).
I currently stand in the door of the Mormon church. We are currently discussing my baptism for the 26th of April. I visit with the missionaries at least once per week. My wife (a Mormon since birth) and I attend church regularly since marriage. We read the book of Mormon to each other nightly (a chapter or two).
Anyway, I gave that brief history to demonstrate my unique perspective in viewing the church. I'm a fly on the wall, as it were. To the best of my knowledge, the church is about God, family and country. In that order. I find blacks, whites, Hispanics, divorced men, single mothers et. al. in the church. So put that nonsense to rest. I also find that their one goal is to make sure YOU (yes you too) get to heaven. That's it. Nothing else. The rest is about love, family and friends, clean living and supporting our country (you know, that out-dated thing called patriotism).
Knowing my history and what I've seen of the church, my vote will go to the best man for the job (supporting my conservative views, of course). Mitt has no better chance to get my vote that anyone else. As for the Mormons, I can guess they will vote for the best person for the job, Mormon or not.
I'm shocked that others would eliminate a potential candidate because of religion. It really speaks volumes about those religions (and seculars) and their mentality. If Evangelicals only vote because someone is "singing their tune" then shame on them. Same for Mormons or anyone else.
I guess my beliefs are a bit different since I was brought up in a house that purposefully avoided religion and God. But all non-violent religions are good for our country in my book. I don't know if one is right and others are wrong. What is important is that I try to do the right thing, all the time. The same holds true for voting. Do the right thing for the country. Not your religion or theocratic ideology.
Will I vote for Mitt? That's a big "maybe".
That's my perspective. I will be happy (and lucky considering my past) to be a member one day. I'm thankful to have been given the opportunity.
|
|
Mormons in our homes; but I'm also not comfortable with requiring people to be of a particular faith before they can run for elected office.
Sure, I'd like everyone to believe like I do; but the day we create religious/belief tests for public office is the day the US becomes Nazi Germany... |
|
Athingortwo is a better class of troll, for which I'm grateful. Instead of saying the Mormons are EEEEVIL athingortwo is merely "asking questions." And sorta hinting at answers, but hey. AT least Athingortwo doesn't actually equate Mormons with Wahabis, though he isn't not doing it either.. I love it when people respond to charges of bigotry by saying, "I'm not a bigot, Mormons really are fascist theocrats, and here's a few cherry-picked and distorted incidents that happened more than 100 years ago to prove it."
A correction: Utah was never a separate country. It was a territory from the get go. Brigham Young was appointed territorial governor. |
|
I think those are good points. I'd respond two ways:
First, I don't think that Hewitt is arguing that the LDS church will benefit Romney. It will be individual Mormons but not eh Church. This is a minor point.
The major point is that I think you misread what Erickson is saying. He's not asking about the political horse race implications of having Mormons support Romney, assuming they do. He's saying that if Mormons do support Romney than Mormon theology is fair game. |
|
Back in the early 80's they tried to scare us about Pat Robertson and the Christians taking over everywhere and making everyone decent citizens which, of course, the Left was very much against. When is that going to happen? When the ice age starts (scare from the 70's) or when Keith Ellison starts wearing shorts in February?
Point is, this religion question is irrelevant when it comes to the affect on the nation. |
|
"bigot - n., a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
Erickson: "If we can expect heavy participation by Mormon missionaries as grassroots activists for an American presidential campaign, why can we not ask questions about Romney’s Mormon beliefs and why can Americans not be concerned?"
Wow, lots of "hatred" and "intolerance" there.
You've got a reputation to protect, Hugh, and its getting seriously tarnished with embarrassing posts like this one. Your hair-trigger on the "bigotry" cannon makes me hope and pray the Romney campaign ends VERY soon; otherwise its going to be a very tedious and tiresome 19+ months on the Hugh Hewitt blog, I can see.
Somehow I don't see you mounting such a defense if a Scientologist were running. Are their religious claims any more sound than the LDS's? Oops, I forgot: I'm not allowed to even ask... silly, bigoted me! |
|
|
|
In another couple weeks everyone's going to be asking, "Mitt who?" Oh, wait, they already are. USA Today/Gallup's latest numbers:
Giuliani 31
McCain 22
Thompson 12
Gingrich 8
Romney 3
Brownback 3 |
|
|
where they are in the polls 600 days out from an election. Never has, never will. |
|
Conrad says: "In another couple weeks everyone's going to be asking, "Mitt who?""
Then I guess that means that you have nothing to be worried about, doesn't it. Relax, and go back to sleep. There will be no Mormon monsters to scare you then. |
|
|
|
|
Nor will there be any anti-Mormon monsters to scare you. |
|
Wow, lots of writing here. However, there is not enough room to refute all the mistakes or willful errors regarding Mormon doctrine, history, and operations. I'll make it brief.
1. If you haven't read the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (revelations given to Joseph Smith), watched 4 or 5 sessions of the annual General Conference, and been to a Mormon church for a number of Sundays, you don't know anything about Mormonism.
2. If Mormonism is such a disaster (as so very many claim above), why is it that it keeps growing in focus, organization, size, breadth, and positive results? It seems to me that we're approaching the point where those that say Mormonism is an aberration are inheriting the burden of proof to establish how it continues to do things that no other religion is capable of doing.
I cite as evidence the 19 year old missionary program. The burden is clearly on the critics of Mormonism to explain how:
1. we get our 19 year olds to leave their lives 2. at the height of the age of selfishness
3. go anywhere they are called
4. study to learn a language fluently
5. all at their own expense
6. work 15 hours a day, every day
7. for two years
8. resulting in a church that is among the fastest growing in the world
9. and come home when they're done (they can't stay) and get on with their lives.
Explain that, critics. And don't be lax in your analysis by admitting that it is merely a good program. Anyone can have a program. Show me who can actually produce teenagers that would go in these numbers? I mean, cummon people, the fact that Mormons actually try and succeed in growing the church on the backs of 19 year old boys is evidence enough that critics should perhaps tread lightly when taking Mormonism down.
If you can't replicate it, don't be so quick to criticize it.
|
|
|
Conrad, those monsters will be around regardless. :) |
|
that Hugh is talking about this point too much. I think he even mentioned the wards, stakes, and missionary thing out of context. It is very possible that many Mormons will vote for Romney because of his political views, but clearly not all Mormons will. We can see that from this website as there are a few who aren't sure if they will vote for him yet.
The truth is that people are afraid of the political power that the Church COULD have instead of the Church's actual political practices. It really doesn't get involved in politics at all. If you ever try to talk politics with a missionary, you will more about everyone's right to chose for themselves, and little on what the missionaries believe politically.
Even members of the LDS apostles have been and are from different political backgrounds. Yet, the Church has never endorsed a candidate. It has only encourage members "to participate" (those are their actual and only words) in elecetions and politics.
Who would deny these facts? This hysteria about the Church mounting a huge political movement is absurd. |
|
|
He is unabashedly Christian (in his mind) and George W. Bush is a big ol' scary Christian (according to the Left) and yet, still, there are liberals, I mean, still, this is not a theocracy. So why are people scared? It doesn't matter if a Mormon, a Wiccan, a Christian, or a Liberal is president. Except for underage girls giving out Lewinskys, the President does not affect the morals of this country. |
|
Hugh is right when he responds to Erik's comments.
1. Erik is attacking Hugh's book.
2. Erik is perpetrating a misconception. He fails to make a distinction between "full time missionaries" who cannot and will not engage in politics and "return missionaries" who are regular citizens who can and will if they get the proper motivation.
3. We got our butts kicked in 2006. We need an answer to Acorn/Moveon. We need candidates who will bring a lot of new talented blood into the party and we need it now. If we do not get the lead out, this generation will go to the Dean's and the Obama's. American will become an Obama-nation.If Romney can get an army of return missionaries to help, McCain, Guiliani and other will respond and that is GOOD. It will help the party.
4. Most importantly, Hugh's main point is that the left has tried to muscle the church out of politics. They want the evangelicals especially to stay home and not vote. Just go sing some hymns but get out of the political arena. If the Mormons get fed to the leftist lions the evangelicals will be next.
5. Since the beginning of Mormonism there has been a paid professional anti-Mormon spin machine. It has perpetrated a number of misconceptions, half-truths and out right lies. For the most part apoligists for the Mormons have decent answers that most people will consider. Since there is concern by key target markets the apolgists and/or the campaign will have to deal with those concerns to some extent.
6. This may sound strange but the anti-Mormon spin machine is an important cog in the Mormon growth machine. They help not hinder the growth of the Mormon church. The biggest constraint to the growth of the Mormon church is the development of local leadership. There is no shortage of potential converts, but the church can only assimilate the growth as fast as it creates strong local leaders. The anti-Mormon spin machine makes for stronger converts who have leadership skills. They make great local leaders which accomodates faster growth.
7. The Mormon church is very diverse both ethnicly and politically. There are a lot of independents and democrats in the average congregation. They will not support Romney just because he is a Mormon, unless they perceive the attacks on Romney to be attacks on their religion. If you want to galvanize the church behind Romney attack the church.
8. On balance Hugh is right the church and it's conservative members are an asset to his campaign and also the party.
9. The anti-Romney/Mormon hysteria is almost comical. The odds of Romney getting the nomination are about 15% and the odds of him getting the presidency are less than 10% (Vegas odds).
10. These early polls bounce around a lot. ARG had good numbers, Gallup has bad ones right now. Newsweek had Romney at 3% a couple of weeks ago and there was a lot of hysteria about Romney being dead. Basically non-sense, Romney is not dropping out anytime soon. |
|
Before, I used to think that Hugh was motivated primarily by his sincere respect for Romney, and his adundant Romney enthusiasm (and laughable claim to "objectivity") were simply the result. However, I've changed my mind, thanks to posts like this one. I saw Hugh on Hannity, and it was the same shtick: "Anti-Mormon bigots are out to get Romney!" The only problem is, this conspiracy theory has little evidence. Everytime someone even mentions Romney's religion, Hugh screams, "Bigot!" Oh, except for when Hugh himself is pointing out the presumedly wildly devoted, built-in Mormon fan base Romney has, an observation which in one line neatly (a) lumps all Mormons together as a monolithic voting bloc incapable of independent thought, and (b) fans the flames of the bigotry Hugh claims to so decry, by painting Mormons as fanatical followers of anyone who shares their religion. I couldn't figure it out; frankly, all this screaming "Victim!" seems a little, well, wuss-ish and leftie-like of Hugh. Then it dawned on me: this is really all about Hugh! After the fall elections eviserated "Painting the Map Red," an answer on the part of the elctorate of "No!" (or more likely, "Huh? What are you talkling about?!") to Hugh's query of "A Mormon in the White House?" would pretty much sink Hugh's batting average to the minor league level.
PS, Hugh: If you really hate it so much that people think of Romney as a Mormon first, then you shouldn't have made it the title of your book about him... |
|
More often than not, when the epithets and names start flying, it's really helpful to sit back and take note of which "side" in a discussion is doing the name calling and accusing, and which side is explaining what their beliefs are without engaging in personal attacks on those who think differently. I'm pretty confident here that most of us on this thread who have voiced disagreement with Hugh Hewitt's rather disagreeable, name-calling post today are mostly engaged in explaining why we respectfully disagree with Hugh's opinion, period. Many if not most of the vehement defenders of Hugh's post seem mostly concerned with figuring out ways they can self-justify their name-calling (i.e., "bigots", "trolls", etc. etc. - it's all really quite boring and infantile, such as it is) and self-declared victimhood.
Sort of like the old days in the Massachusetts colony, when cadres of self-styled experts in the art of identifying witches, whom they loudly denounced, made a living off the misery of others.
It's all rather pathetic, the low state of debate on most of these threads, almost no matter the topic. Anyone who expresses a heartfelt disagreement is immediately labeled a troll or a bigot. I thought that Dean Barnett said a couple weeks ago that he was going to start policing these threads and zapping the name-callers, but apparently he has other things to do with his time.
Anyway, it seems, as I pointed out in a previous post, and in light of the plummeting poll numbers for Romney cited by another poster, that the more loudly Mitt's defenders protest his even being questioned about how his unusual faith might affect his secular performance, the more the voters are turned off. It's just proving to be too much baggage ... that could easily have been addressed with a straight up, non-defensive stance ... in lieu of the victim-du-jour stance projected by Hugh and some of his supporters.
Hugh, you're definitely not helping your man, or your book sales, or my opinion of you, with gratuitous ad hominem attacks such as you engaged in today. |
|
I think it was Athingortwo who started throwing around slanders about Mormons in the 19th century being traitors and rebels and that this was relevant to today's elections.
I call a bigot a bigot. |
|
In an earlier post I noted a "paid profesional spin machine". That reference was not toward anyone who has posted on this thread. I was refering to 150 years of authors and film makers who have made a decent amount of money from selling anti Mormon books and showing films and asking for donations.
The God Makers and the God Makers II are a good example. One of those movies has been shown in many (maybe most) congregations throughout the country at some time. That is one of the reasons why the Romney campaign will have to address "religious issues" at some time.
I would suggest that the campaign not do it directly but that separate forces start a 527 to address the misconceptions and answer key concerns. Yes I know there is already an anti Mormon 527.
On the name calling, I beleive in a high degree of religous and academic freedom. It is okay if we disagree. Sorry if I racheted things up a bit. The dialogue is valuable and interesting. However, we should leave comments about trolls to MYDD and Daily Kos. |
|
|
LDS cannot be so bad if it produces girls like her. Lay off the anti Mormon stuff. |
|
|
Ironically, if Romney had been more faithful to his Mormon background, he would probably be having a lot more success. Personally, I have worked with many LDS members in the grass-roots Republican trenches, and I don't know a single one of them who has ever waffled on issues of life and family. Too bad Romney can't say the same. |
|
At this point the Vegas ODDS on the nomination and the general election are a more accurate predictor than any particular poll. The odds like the polls can move rapidly to changes in perception. The odds will change as the campaign progresses. The last column to the right is the latest trade. Romney has a 16% and Thompson a 10% chance of getting the nomination.
The odds of becoming President are at the very bottom of this page.
Hilary 25%, Guiliani 21%, Obama 18%, McCain 13%, Gore 8% and Romney 7%. Currently there is not a market for Thompson but I am sure that will change if he declares or there is enough people want to bet on him.
Best to Sell Best to Buy
Contract BQty Bid Offer AQty Last Vol Chge
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.GIULIANI
720 40.5 40.6 8 40.6 75.5k +0.1
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN
11 20.3 23.0 1 23.4 78.7k +3.2
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.ROMNEY
10 16.6 16.7 6 16.3 60.8k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F)
5 9.9 10.7 2 9.8 4074 +0.0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.HAGEL
5 3.0 3.4 32 3.2 30.0k -0.2
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.GINGRICH
15 3.4 3.6 11 3.4 33.3k +0.1
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.HUCKABEE
5 2.2 2.7 11 2.9 34.4k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.BROWNBCK
40 1.4 1.5 4 1.1 24.1k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.RICE
2 1.7 1.8 30 1.5 85.6k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.PAUL
780 0.1 0.5 5 0.4 20.9k +0.2
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.HUNTER
205 0.2 0.4 18 0.2 19.9k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.ALLEN
0 - 0.1 328 0.1 36.9k +0.0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.CHENEY
119 0.4 0.7 32 0.4 27.3k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.BUSH(J)
48 0.3 0.7 5 0.3 33.6k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.POWELL
116 0.2 0.8 3 0.2 23.4k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(T)
48 0.3 0.6 23 0.3 23.1k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.TANCREDO
274 0.1 0.2 149 0.1 15.7k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.OWENS
16 0.1 0.2 28 0.1 20.5k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.SANTORUM
0 - 0.1 991 - 20.0k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.BLOMBERG
88 0.9 1.0 27 0.9 23.2k -0.0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.GRAHAM
0 - 0.1 953 - 14.6k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.PAWLENTY
0 - 0.1 2179 - 18.9k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.SANFORD
0 - 0.1 1233 - 18.8k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.DOLE(E)
0 - 0.1 2051 - 14.8k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.SCHWARZ
0 - 0.1 3538 - 10.9k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.RIDGE
0 - 0.1 2940 - 14.6k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.FRANKS
0 - 0.1 4987 - 4314 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.GILMORE
0 - 0.1 682 - 13.0k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.WARNER
0 - 0.1 5198 - 3432 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.FRIST
0 - 0.1 1538 - 24.0k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.PATAKI
0 - 0.1 960 - 23.5k 0
Trade
2008.GOP.NOM.BARBOUR
0 - 0.1 1533 - 17.4k 0
Contract BQty Bid Offer AQty Last Vol Chge
Trade
2008.PRES.CLINTON(H)
1 24.1 26.0 50 25.0 17.4k 0
Trade
2008.PRES.GIULIANI
15 19.5 21.0 5 21.0 8872 0
Trade
2008.PRES.OBAMA
64 18.4 18.8 31 18.4 8271 -0.6
Trade
2008.PRES.McCAIN
12 12.6 14.8 3 13.8 11.5k +1.3
Trade
2008.PRES.GORE
246 8.0 8.1 214 8.0 12.2k 0
Trade
2008.PRES.ROMNEY
322 7.0 7.9 30 7.2 5977 0
Trade
2008.PRES.WARNER
7 0.2 1.0 100 0.5 1037 0
Trade
2008.PRES.EDWARDS
3 3.7 6.0 50 5.0 2013 0
Trade
2008.PRES.ALLEN
100 0.3 1.0 99 0.6 344 0
|
|
Thanks for you comments and good luck on your baptism on April 26th. It is so great to see changes in people's lives, for the better. I have seen nothing but good from the people I go to church with. As Glenn Beck said, he "was amazed they really are happy".
If people think we are all republicans (a lot are) just look at old harry from Nevada. (You look I can hardly stand to watch him on TV).
Anyway, best wishes. |
|
The Gallup Poll is of Adults (as was the NewWeek Poll of a couple of weeks ago) and polls of adults always over state Guiliani and McCain and understate Romney.
The Zogby Poll is of Likely Voters which should be a lot closer to reality and is line with other recent polls.
When ever you see a poll of adults know you are looking at about as much distortion as Enron Accounting. |
|
When the lead comment is posted, the entirety of that comment, and the logic thereof, and where that logic naturally leads, is at issue.
UNLESS, the author asks that those commenting CONFINE their comments to a specific thought, to a specific proposal, to a specific theme.
No such request was made by Professor Hewitt in his lead post.
Of late, Professor Hewitt has been cavalierly comparing several aspects of Catholic spirituality to Mormonism. He did so again in his lead post.
He also raised the specter of "religious tests," which are Constitutionally prohibited.
That issue was broached by him.
He suggested that "mainstreaming" review of religious affiliation was "abhorrent" to him.
I took the natural logic of that position and applied it to that group that Mark Steyn has written in his recent bestseller.
And I questioned whether a measure that all would deem rather mild and sane, would be "abhorrent" in that setting.
Professor Hewitt doesn't need to go down that path in his zealous boosterism of his book, and his candidate.
And what's more, I'm not even sure that Mitt Romney himself, would go as far as Professor Hewitt, in his blanket, breezy, categorical denunciation of religious doctrinal scrutiny.
All Professor Hewitt has to do is point out that Mormons have been all around you, they've fought with you in your wars, they've suffered with you in your trials, they've prayed for you, in their temples. They've contributed to American greatness.
He doesn't need to go out there and effectively eviscerate our ability to understand and respond to the challenge of islam.
Be very careful of the markers that are being laid down. For rest assured, CAIR and other such groups will seize upon those markers, in order to advance an agenda wholly hostile to that of the United States, wholly hostile to our founding document, The Declaration of Independence. |
|
There is no question that evangelicals and most Mormons are (should be) natural social allies on political issues.
What concerns me is that the left has labor unions who actively work in campaigns and use coerced union dues to further the agendas of the left and somehow the MSM and many people seem to think that is fine. The quasi religions like Sierra Club and Green Peace engage in all kinds of activites but they do not lose thier tax exempt status. They are just exercising their protest rights.
However,if Romney taps a natural talent pool it set off alarms.
As far as calling other Republicans religious bigots, I do not think that is wise. Most non Mormons are simply repeating something they read in an anti Mormon book. They are raising the issue partly because it concerns them and no one has adequately addressed the issue for them. Those people are not bigots, they just do not have both sides of the story.
Those objections need to be addressed. I do not think that the Romney campaign will address them adequately. I also do not think the campaign is the best entity to address these issues. It needs come from outside of the campaign.
The talent and the money exists to address these issues and address them well. The key questions are who and how. |
|
|
We'll take all comers who want to know about the Church or anything it teaches. Just check your sources, friends. People - be they academics, theologians, or merely curious - can know a lot about the Church without really knowing the Church. So much should be obvious to the casual reader of these comments. There's a lot of knowledge flying around here, but not much wisdom. |
|
I think you will find ample evidence of reasonable discourse in defending LDS beliefs if you go to any of the townhall threads that cover the Romney/LDS connection.
I believe that you will see rational, reasoned discourse on the part of the vast majority of LDS posters.
You will also find links to official LDS websites that should explain the doctrines and belief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to full satisfaction.
Two come to mind:
lds.org
mormon.org
If Romney is nominated I will vote for him.
I will support his bid for the nomination.
I will do this as a private citizen, not as a representative of my LDS faith.
If I see any missionaries involved in the campaign (extremely unlikely), I will call their Mission President and tell him to pull them in and explain the Church's position of political neutrality.
Now, if y'all don't mind, I'll just go on being one really happy Mormon. |
|
I think that people who read a book full of wild-sounding stories and accusations, most of them from 2 centuries ago, and then believe that the responsibility is on Mormons to prove that they aren't evil, are bigots. No ifs, ands, or buts.
But you're probably right that pointing out that they are bigots isn't the most effective (or the most Christ-like) approach. Probably best to bite the lip and try to use reason and facts. My only complaint is that I don't think politics should be about theology so I don't want to see political discussions turn into rah-rah sessions for the Mormon church anymore than I want them to turn into smear attacks on the Mormon church. |
|
Athingortwo wants Romney to promise that he'll keep his oath of office. Romney already has.
Here's wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2008 ):
On Fox News Romney said, "America has a political religion, which is to place the oath of office, an oath to abide by a nation of laws and a constitution, above all others. And there's no question that I make that my primary responsibility." Mike Otterson, an LDS spokesman, said, "The suggestion that a Mormon leader would dictate policy to a President Romney is absurd, I can't imagine any president that would allow that.
If Romney has a responsibility to respond to all of Athingortwo's lurid fears, then Athingortwo has a responsibility to pay attention. |
|
Actually a Web site and possibly a book may be a good start. The top 10 anti Mormon thrusts should be addressed. However, it needs to be done in non inflamatory language and in Protestant (not Mormon Language) in a way that the average Protestant really understands. It is not a matter of bashing the non Mormons who raise issues it is a matter of addressing thier real objections in a language that they will relate to. We need to talk diretly to the average Protestant voter not the Anti Mormon Spin Machine.
You are right there are some excellent posts on here. Maybe Hugh can compile them into another book? Maybe with some refinements?
Sherry Dew (Pres of D Book) may be another option. It would take little to put up a website. In the longer run if enough money were generated tv ads might be necessary.
Just some thoughts. A 527 is easy to start (money and paper work) but a pain to maintain. Further, each state has it's own election laws. The first amendment is in really bad shape when it comes to political speech. Some really good election legal beagles would be necessary.
|
|
Erick Erickson the big dog at Red State wrote this Reviw of Hugh Hewitt's new book.
It is interesting that he picked a forum that does not allow people to respond...
You will have to respond to his "review" here, on this page...
I am picking out a few of the positive parts.
Like Hewitt, were the election held today, I would vote for Mitt Romney...
...Mitt Romney is a man the nation would be lucky to have as its President if only because of his character: a hard-working, grounded, moral and smart family man.
Here is a negative part:
The book is fraught with frustrating contradictions. For example, Hewitt writes that “everyone knows the GOP nominee must in many ways be the anti-Bush,” but then he goes on to praise Romney for being a (1) “former governor,” a (2) “billionaire venture capitalist,” a (3) student of Harvard’s Business School, (4) building “a reputation as . . . [a] successful entrepreneur,” and (5) using a CEO management style allowing all opinions to be debated before he, as CEO, makes the ultimate decision applying all the facts and opinions presented--all attributes that echo candidate George W. Bush.
(1) “former governor”
This is a "frustrating contradiction"? Man what logic! Some how the anti-Bush can not be a governor! This is 3rd grade logic, like everyone from Massachusetts or California is bad. According to Erick, Romney must be just like Bush because "Romney is a Governor" and "Bush is a Governor".
(2) “billionaire venture capitalist”
According to Erick another example of a "frustrating contradiction" in the book is that Hugh says "everyone knows the GOP nominee must in many ways be the anti-Bush yet Romney is a "billionaire venture capitalist. Is this a "frustrating contradiction? Erick, was George Bush a "billionaire venture capitalist"? This would seem like an obvious question to ask yourself before pushing the publish button and sending out your stupid review of Hugh's book.
No. As a matter of fact, most people on this planet know that George W. Bush was NOT, in fact, a "venture capitalist".
Check it out for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
Bush went into his father's business: Oil.
(3) "student of Harvard’s Business School"
According to Erick another example of a "frustrating contradiction" in the book is that Hugh says "everyone knows the GOP nominee must in many ways be the anti-Bush yet Romney is a "student of Harvard's Business School". On he is right. Bush and Romney both graduated from Harvard Business school.
I have heard that Harvard Business school is easy. However, Romney also graduated from Harvard Law School. Bush did not. So there is a difference.
But again, this gets at your very basic ability to understand very simple concepts. Somehow you think Romney cannot be the anti-Bush because they graduated from the same school?
You are an idiot.
Another difference is Romney graduated Cume Laude, from Law School. Romney was also a Baker scholar, and graduated in the top 5% from Business School. Can the same be said about Bush? But does any of this matter? Are people who graduated from the same school, the same? Even if they did just as well as each other, would you say they are the same?
(4) “a reputation as . . . [a] successful entrepreneur”.
According to Erick another example of a "frustrating contradiction" in the book is that Hugh says "everyone knows the GOP nominee must in many ways be the anti-Bush yet Romney has “a reputation as . . . [a] successful entrepreneur”.
Again. Did Bush build “a reputation as . . . [a] successful entrepreneur”? No. This would go to prove Hugh's point that, in fact, Mitt Romney is much different than Bush. You say Hugh's book is filled with "frustrating contradiction". No one has every accused Bush of being a successful entrepreneur. Romney's career contrast very will to Bush's. Your review is filled with frustrating idiocy. Hugh's book is not filled with "frustrating contradictions".
(5) "using a CEO management style allowing all opinions to be debated before he, as CEO, makes the ultimate decision applying all the facts and opinions presented--all attributes that echo candidate George W. Bush"
According to Erick another example of a "frustrating contradiction" in the book is that Hugh says "everyone knows the GOP nominee must in many ways be the anti-Bush yet Romney "uses a CEO management style allowing all opinions to be debated before he, as CEO, makes the ultimate decision applying all the facts and opinions presented--all attributes that echo candidate George W. Bush"has “a reputation as . . . [a] successful entrepreneur”.
Who, Erick, has ever accused Bush of using this MO?
Then Erick says the weirdest thing I have ever heard in regard to the political campaign. It may be the biggest blunder of any commentator so far, speaking of 2008. He somehow asserts that Mormon Missionaries are going to be working for MR08… He says…
If we can expect heavy participation by Mormon missionaries as grassroots activists for an American presidential campaign, why can we not ask questions about Romney’s Mormon beliefs and why can Americans not be concerned? After all, contrary to the popular perception of the left and media, there were no organized platoons of Presbyterian missionaries knocking on doors for Reagan, brigades of Baptists for Bill Clinton, nor marauding packs of Methodists for George W. Bush. This is something relatively unseen and new to most Americans --including many deeply evangelical Americans who believe Mormonism to be a cult, or at best a religion that has some shared roots, but is fundamentally grounded in heresies.
He then goes on to say:
Nonetheless, his failure to strongly advocate for life while governor, coupled with the fact that every campaign he has run for public office until now he’s been in favor of abortion rights and in favor of Roe v. Wade, gives many sophisticated and educated pro-life advocates pause. Hewitt’s failure to address Romney’s statements in 2002 is a deficiency in an otherwise good argument and weakens his defense against Romney’s pro-life critics.
What? “Every campaign he has run for public office until now”. Yes, Erick, that would be 3. If you still think Romney has an Abortion problem, I don’t care about you Erick. I think you have an abortion problem. You, apparently are much better than Ronald Reagan. You, apparently, are much smarter than George H. Bush, who were both pro-choice. You, apparently are better than Tommy Thompson, and Brownback who were seen as pro-choice.
Erick finishes his review with this:
Hugh does not mention Romney’s two major weaknesses. The first is the appearance by Romney of being a political opportunist, having been in favor of abortion before he was against it, against President Bush’s tax cuts before he was for them, for campaign finance reform before he was against it, for liberal immigration reforms before he was against them, etc.
Hugh did not mention them, because you are just making stuff up. Romney was never against president Bush’s tax cuts. And it is just stupid to say that Romney was for campaign finance reform before he was against it. I saw a speech from Romney where he said incumbents have too much money. Is this an official endorsement of McCain Feingold in your brilliant mind? Is that how you work? All policy positions can be boiled down to “for campaign finance reform” or “against campaign fianance reform”. You don’t want to know anything about the specifics of which reforms someone is talking about?
Erick is the problem with the republican party. He is stupid, and he is proud of it. He is not ashamed of stupid logic. He is not ashamed of saying stuff than can easily be refuted. As long as he speaks on Red State, and pulls the trigger on who can talk and who cannot, as long as someone from the bad blue states never talks to him, as long as he never talks to someone who disagrees with him.
I like rough drafts. I wrote this when I was angry. I know I probably said some stupid stuff, but sometimes I listen to Michael Savage. It is sometimes good to just get stuff off your chest.
What do you think?
~ Mike
|
|
Romney has to address this issue and I am sure that he will. However, he is waiting for the right timing when more people are listening.
Unfortunately, his past positions on social issues are prime evidence that Romney is not dictated to by church leadership as his previous political positions on abortion were definetly out of step the Mormon theological position.
The key question is what will Romney actually do if he gets elected. Will he really fight for the right positions. Most canidates do not keep thier promises. A few comply with the letter of the law and once in a while you get a Reagan who really fights for what is right.
Romney is pretty opportunistic. If he really believes in the position, I think he will fight and fight effectively. I think he showed that in the gay marriage fight in Mass. |
|
If one were to write a book or put up a website addressing the weakenesses of the Romney campaign there is a risk that the effort may be construed as an "in kind campaign contribution". This is due to the wording of McCain/Feingold (in part).
Political speech is very curtailed and damaged by this law. It needs to be repealed. You can be exercising your rights and end up like Tom Delay with a law suit from a crusading Dem from another county.
Any formal effort to address campaign weaknesses will have to have the involvelment of very good legal minds who know how to stay on the right side of MF and the various state laws.
That is one of the functions of a publishing house and that is why I suggested that a known author with a publisher pursue this. |
|
There a some similarities between Bush and Romney.
However, a major difference is that Bush is very stubborn (loyal) and has a strong tendency to not change when he needs to. Romney on the other hand tends to adapt and be flexible. Some would say he is too flexible. |
|
...is very, very weak, and I say that as a conservative who is not fond of either of them (well, perhaps that's not fair; I'm indifferent towards Mitt, and digusted by Bush...)
Both Bush and Romney were governors, both Bush and Romney have MBAs from Harvard, both are White, wealthy males, and both come from "poltical" families. But that's about it. I find Romney the politician frustrating; he seems very willing to change positions on a whim, or more accurately, on a need to placate supporters. But there is no denying that he is a very successful and self-made businessman. Bush (43) as a businessman was an unmitigated disaster. Romney seems to have spent his life as a hard-working family man. Bush famously spent his "youth" (which now appparently ends at 40 years of age) carousing and partying. Romney is clearly intelligent and well spoken; Bush often sounds like he is wrestling with the English language and losing. Romney's father was a regionally successful governor, unknown to most outside of Michigan - and as someone who lives in Michigan, I would add little known here, too. Bush (41) was, well, POTUS, and while he may not have been universally loved, especially by conservatives, he governed w/ a competence sorely lacking in his son. In short, Romney's success seems to be the result of his own hard work and talent, while Bush.... Well, does anyone seriously doubt that if his last name had been Smith, he never would have been Texas governor, much less POTUS? He seems like a nice enough guy, and a decent human being. But as CIC he has been reckless and incompetent, during a time that simply has DEMANDED competence....
So in this comparision, Romney comes out the clear winner, IMHO. However, I still find him too slick and insincere to win my support. Too many position changes in too short a time. Noticce how religion was not mentioned once above. I assure you, though, that Hugh and his cronies will claim that the fact that I still don't support Romney for POTUS means I must be an anti-Mormon bigot! I agree w/ the above poster who said painting Romney as a bigotry victim is hardly an effective way to make him seem a compellingly competent POTUS contender. Sadly, Romney's candidacy is being undone by supporters like Hugh... |
|
btmattson says:
"If we can expect heavy participation by Mormon missionaries.."
Mormon missionaries are not allowed to do anything except to get people to listen to their religious message, not anything else. So Erickson is misrepresenting the facts.
Replace "Mormon Beliefs" with "Cathloic Beliefs" in your statement and we have a litmus test.
Mormons believe that God raised up the founders of this nation to bring forth the Constitution so as to avoid religious bigotry by letting each worship without any harrassment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting more anti-mormon bilge? |
|
|
|
You've reduced a substantive argument to a single statement to knock it down.
Let me put it in terms you may be able to better understand: Christ said, if the fruit is good, then you must admit the is tree good. If the fruit is bad, then say the tree is bad. But you can't say, 'the fruit is good fruit but the tree is bad', or visa versa. Christ has specifically struck down that line of thinking and reasoning.
|
|
...such mind-numbing stupidity as I see when reading Lydia's posts. One really has to wonder where these people come from.
|
|
...about your idiocy. You've got that right.
|
|
Erik's comments represent specifically what I perceive to be wrong with the Evangelical Chistian movement in America: it is fighting the wrong battle again. The "Christians" always fight against Mormons, when politically Mormons would be their strongest ally.
I know that not every "Christian" opposes Mitt Romney, but I am convinced that many who oppose Romney make their argument out of fear of his faith, and not out of objection to his politics.
It is implausible to me that Conservatives should oppose Mitt Romney because of his previous position on abortion. Conservatives should be supporting him regardless of their faith. If Conservatives or Christians will treat people this poorly who have, after much thought and prayer, taken up a Conservative viewpoint, and revile them and reject their change of heart as invalid or insincere, then they deserve never to see another convert again.
To avoid supporting a Mormon, these people will take up the cause of McCain or Giuliani, neither of which have backgrounds or policy ideas as Conservative as Romney's, and in so doing prove that their principles are only skin-deep and that they are themselves hypocrites. |
|
Your version of Christianity is no better than any other oppressive, bigoted, unreasonable regime that has ever been tossed upon the trash heap of History.
Yours is a false version of Christianity that will pass away, because it is one in which there can be no faith.
Read Mark 9:38-40 |
|
.. why all the hate? Mormons don't hate you. Not even remotely. Nor do Mormons condem you - or anyone.
Your comments and attitude represent the opposite of Mormonism, which is really ironic and kinda funny.
Basically, regardless of your rhetoric, you build a powerful case in favor of their ideology just by sitting there pressing on the keyboard. |
|
Please keep in mind that Catholics,Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Church of Christ and Mormoms (and probably some others) believe in salvation by grace and works. Plus if you listen to many of the more conservative Protestant ministers they more or less indicate that if you do not act like a Christian (at least try on a consistent basis to keep the commandments)you are probably not a real Christian, no matter how many alter calls, professions etc. that you have made.
To suggest that Mormoms are not Christian based on a doctrine of grace alone is not a very strong arguement.
On the other hand if you are simply pointing out one of the differences where Mormon and Protestant theology differ that is another matter. |
|
I don't know if I understand the rule.
We can't include, in our judgment of Romney's fitness for President, some of his most deeply held beliefs and our knowledge (or lack thereof) and opinion of those beliefs? Or else we're racist or religionist or discriminatory?
How can we not? We've done the same to every other Presidential candidate, I'd argue.
No, the rule must be: don't let the fact of his Mormonism alone automatically disqualify him from your consideration.
Same for Kennedy and Catholicism. Same for Ellison and Islam? What about a Japanese American-born citizen of the U.S. back when the Emperor was a god? Wasn't that why we took all those measures with the people of Japanese descent during WW2? Or a cannibal?
It seems to me that there ARE automatic disqualifiers. If the belief is subjectively odious enough, and it will affect his job performance, he will be disqualified.
You learn enough about Mormonism to decide whether belief in it alone, in your opinion, is enough to disqualify him. Or if it will affect him as President in a negative way.
If I did that, and it disqualified him for me, I'd be a religious bigot?
|
|
I think Romney's religion has to be addressed and it will not hurt him in the long run. Most of his beliefs are more mainstream than many evangelicals understand.
I think it is fine to discuss Romney's religon in a forum like this. However, it is much more difficult for the campaign to address details of his faith as it will take the campaign off message. The campaign needs to address a few key points that highlight differential advantages of Romney over the others.
The religious discussion needs to be handled by "independent expenditures that are uncoordinated with the campaign" (that means 527 and other approaches).
I have looked seriously at starting a 527. I do not feel I have the legal background that is required to negotiate the maze of campaign laws. McCain/Fiengold is definetly having a chilling effect on free speech.
|
|
|
|